Your thoughts on the Arc of Boxing

lacks complete objective analysis of any competitors after 1960 in terms of ability. the intent of the book is great, and the level of cooperation and contributions are too. But it's just so absurdly slanted and rose tinted I just can't get with it.

 

Sounds like the Bible of the Classic Forum.

 

To be fair, Hagler only managed a draw with Vito Antuofermo when Vito was champion (and that decision wasn't the robbery many made out) - so it's not as if Graziano wouldn't stand quite a chance either.
It's ridiculous to say "Hagler could not" beat him though.

 

Pernell Whitaker would embarass lou ambers and tyson would have demolished the entire heavyweight division in any decade previous.
This guy is a ****ing crackpot.

 

On the subject of old-timers vs modern.
Bob Edgren's opinion in 1924

 

I had Hagler clearly winning 9 rds. For me that was a robbery. And I think even Antufermo looks better than Graziano. Rocky was the harder puncher, but I don't think that would make too much of a difference here.

 

Willie Meehan UD(4 ROUNDS) Mike Tyson

 

Lou Ambers was one of the greatest lightweights of all time.
Ambers v Whitaker would be a great fight.

 

Fair enough.
I'll have to score it again, but I thought the draw verdict was well within reason.
I'd pick Hagler over Graziano, of course.

 

Saw Rocky Graziano from the prelims and up to Zale.Enjoyed the book the Arc of Boxing, but i feel that Hagler would be a favorite over Rocky, but no way Vito Antefuormo beats Rocky Graziano. Rocky would have bombarded
Vito with his right hand bombs,and cut him up or stopped him. The Tony Zale fights,ruined Graziano, I believe...Cheers...

 

Burt, do you know what Mike Silver or any of the old timer's views on the 60's and 70's heavyweight era where? What they thought of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the overall strength of the era, as well as how they stacked up against the heavyweights of the Golden Era?

 

Needless to say Mike was a massive advocate of the subtle stylings of Ayub Kalule.the first man to use feints since 1964.

 

No matter how good, and how hard they fight at amateur level, how many of these fighteres are ready to fight a seasoned and classy pro at the first attempt?

 

Sgr, I don't know what Mike Silvers views were on the 1960-70s heavyweights . At a seminar,Silver and other historians answered general boxing questions by fans,and i got to speak to him for a couple of minutes
about Freddie Steele,Al Hostak etc. But i do know that Ray Arcel ,before he passed away, called Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis,the greatest heavyweights of all-time, [I concur],and Arcel raved about Benny Leonard and Roberto Duran.
Personally I believe that the Ali era of Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes,
Quarry,Lyle, Bonavena, Chuvalo,Liston [uncuffed],was the overall best crop of heavyweights at one time. But at their peak,I believe still, Dempsey and Louis, were still tops H2H ...They combined great power with blazing handspeed...Take care...

 

Quite a few.

Leonard vs. Benitez.

Holyfield vs. Qawi.

I could go on and on.

And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but some guys in the Golden Age didn't shine the first time they stepped up against a "seasoned and classy pro" for the first time.